Merged: Pacific Blue infringement in NZQN?
 

Probe into Pacific Blue flight

NZPA July 27, 2010, 7:15 am

http://l.yimg.com/fv/xp/nzpa/2010072...f8KoRaYvCYmw-- NZPA © Enlarge photo




#lightbox_press{border:none;}.y_pxTag {display: none;}

Related Links

• : Shock as mid-air collision kills two near Feilding

The Civil Aviation Authority is investigating after the lives of 140 passengers and crew were reportedly put at risk when a Pacific Blue pilot allegedly ignored visual flight rules and took off in darkness from Queenstown airport.
Witnesses of the June 22 flight said the Boeing 737 flew dangerously low to avoid low fog and an incoming front, Radio New Zealand reported toay.
One witness said the plane did not climb as it should have, but flew at under 1000 feet (300 metres) as it negotiated its way out of the mountains in thick cloud.
A Pacific Blue spokesman said the flight took off outside daylight hours and the company would cooperate with the investigation.




Probe into Pacific Blue flight - Yahoo!Xtra News

NZ CAA investigating Pacific Blue flight ex-Queenstown
 

Reported in NZ Herald:

'Dangerous' Queenstown takeoff investigated by CAA | NATIONAL News

Didn't take long to make it onto pprune! Once apon a time that sort of thing was commonplace in QN, now there is no tolerance for anything left of centre..probably a good thing really. Popeye Lucas would be turning in his grave

I see the crew have been stood down. The company if they were going to do it should have done it the next day not a couple of months after the fact!

I wonder when Jet Star's little approach shenanigans will become public. If true then that's scary.

The crew were stood down immediately upon arrival at destination I believe. ZQN ATC had a fit when the a/c departed so PB were aware asap that the incident occured.

This was not quickly reported at all..... this incident occured nearly 4 weeks ago, I personally knew of it about a week after it happened thru crewroom scuttlebutt.

S2K

Fine, the same crewroom scuttlebut that informed me of this incident also told me that a Jetstar flight advised ATC they were going to fly the VOR approach and then proceded on down the RNP approach. Which I think is just a little unusual.

titan uranus you seem to want to shut this thread down with your admonishments. I wonder why?

I didn't even know Pac Blue flew in there. How long have they been doing that?
I wonder if the pilots recieve the same level of training as the Air NZ and Qantas pilots do, ie a 'Queenstown Ground school' and specific 'Queenstown Simulator Training' ? They probably do , can anyone confirm the extent of special training they get?
Taking off after the 30 mins to ECT limit smacks of commercial pressure to me (I'm not saying thats an excuse).

Huh? "Cleared for take off runway 05.... and boy are you in trouble!"

How did ATC bring themselves to let them Taxi or T/O?

I think you will find
a) It was an RNP approach that then switched to circling in the basin
b) It was a non revenue validation flight

ZQN Tower are pretty damn good, there to help, and given the diversity of approaches, trials, operators and departures coupled with WX do a fanbloodytastic job I think.

"smacks of commercial pressure to me" at Pac Blue realy ummm?

The CEO MP put out news letter saying he "expects" all crew including pilots even if you are on duty travel to help clean the A/C on turn arounds.
No coffie stops in the morning this may affect OTP...
:*

Googe OTP and pacific Blue they are always banging on about it,looks like they didn't make OTP that day "Just a "few" minuts past ect", according to their spokesman" :oh:

They now have a fuel saving commitie made up of pilots and managment we all know the type; which has cut fuel to the bone min gas everywere not even an allounce for a standard IF app if you want more gas you must have a reason...

Crikey Blog...

One of the biggest risks to airline safety today is pilots who think like accountants or shareholders rather than as professional pilots. Pacific Blue needs to do more than ‘co-operate’ after being caught breaking the regulations in a serious and material manner. It needs to audit its safety standards, and refine and enforce a safety culture that prevents pilots from endangering not only jet loads of people, but its reputation and brand value.

And no questions are asked if you want to take more gas... no CP on the phone, no one from OPS calling you to try and take less gas, only a reason for statistical reasons on the Flight Plan.


You must be a journalist.... to be able to make up bs like that....

Maybe ATC were off watch because ECT had occured..... and the PB crew elected to use unattended procedures.... :=

How I heard it was that ATC were still in the tower (probably off watch packing their lunch boxes into their bags) when the a/c took off.

A crew from my company were in the taxi heading to the hotel (they had missed the cutoff to depart due weather) when they observed the a/c heading towards Rat Point.

S2K

Why would you NOT have a reason for taking extra gas...??? If you take extra just for the hell of it, you deserve a severe bollocking! :rolleyes::ugh::ugh:

Keeping an open mind, I decided to look up some things for myself.

According to Airways, ECT on the 22nd of June was 1744 local. The media reports put the departure time at 1725ish. Outside of the ECT -30 limit yes, but still daylight. Is the 30 minute limit regulatory or self imposed?

The AIP Supplement puts ATC on duty until 1800. If I can remember correctly, a tower closing off greater than 20? minutes early requires a NOTAM to be put out advising of the early close (sure a Controller will correct me if wrong). The Poindexter in me also found this gem in the AIP.
NZQN AD 2 - 31.1 makes mention that ATC must be in attendance for CAT B and C arrivals and departures. Considering the above I would be surprised to find the tower was off watch.

If they have broken the rules I'm sure it will come out in the wash and appropriate action will need to be taken however, as anyone in any industry dealing with reports from the public knows, eye witnesses are well known for being extremely unreliable especially when time has elapsed from the event.

any ATC service is 30mins without notice .... more than this requires a NOTAM

ATC don't generally knock off 30mins prior to NOTAMed hours of service if there are still sked flights coming or going.

Sky Cops
 

Below MDA, why don't you just concentrate on operating your own aircraft safely and leave safety regulation to CAANZ. I have personally observed a certain kiwi operator doing split arse turns on to the reciprical runway following a MAP in ZQN....and no, we didn't call CAANZ to report it..:=

Well, why would you call CAA over that? And I don't need to call CAA over anything, they're already there watching!

I used to fly bugsmashers out of QN and I'm trying to see what was wrong here other than the 10 minute late departure..
When the eyewitness says the aircraft flew low out to a low cloud base before circling behind calvin heights..that sounds like a typical Bowen RNAV departure with a cloud base of 300' and 3.7km vis. It IS for approved operators only..is that not PB?

Journalism at its best on TV3 last night. I didn't know a normal 737 departure out of ZQN involved climbing to 10,000' in a matter of seconds :ugh:

Anyone?
I ask because my feeling is that cost cutting over the last decade or so is eating into our safety standards (as an industry) and I would be interested to know if this is the case here. Running sims and ground schools for a specific airport is expensive business and I imagine it would be tempting for a low cost airline to skimp a bit on this. If they haven't skimped on this then I doubt they are going to be making much money in Qtown with AirNZ, Jetstar and Qantas all serving it already.
If they have provided less than the other airlines provide to their crews then I feel for the crew involved and the company is reaping what they have sown.
Framer

Yes.. on both.. specific ground and Computer based training course and a course of simulator training, just like all the other part 121 jet operators that fly in and out of ZQN. As well as final check to line to operate into that port with a flight examiner..

Thanks for that Cypher. Its good to hear that is the case.

TV 3
 

After checking the technical log of the aircraft involved in the incident, I can confirm that the Afterburners on the CFM56 engines on this aircraft were both unserviceable on the day and the aircraft was operating under an MEL.

Assy

Gawd, how I hope someone (media) bites on that one assymetric!!! :ok:

Sounds like Campbell Live are going the whole hog on it tonight, sim re-enactment and account from thought-I-was-going-to-die passenger on this flight. Flight of DEAAAAAAAAATH.

good s&%# to watch:}

Here's John Campbell's piece...

Relive the infamous Pacific Blue flight out of Queenstown - Campbell Live - Video - 3 News

Oh my god that's some of the worst reporting I have ever seen? I only watched the first minute or so?

That sim guy must extremely pissed off with himself when he watches that? He's not typed on the A/c, not trained in Queenstown and has no idea about much!!

The reporter, very disappointing no research what so ever TV3 you sure made cocks of yourselves over that!!

Watch what you say on the PA. :ouch:

piss poor journalism TV3! :ugh:

What a load of CRAP:ugh:

Is there a link that anyone can post for the departure and arrival procedure.

Love the comment "Visibility was reported at 32km, is that enough?", Sim idiot "It's enough on a normal day to go flying but you need a bit more than that to get out of Queenstown, we can't even see the end of Lake Wakatipu"

What the F..k!
What an idiot!

If I was PB I'd being suing TV3 for the embarrassment! and the aero club sim guy!

Links to approaches and departures here:

VATNZ - VATSIM New Zealand - Queenstown

What departure were they doing?

leave a comment on the story page at tv3news.co.nz

Horrible journalism....

According to the reporter the sim guy "is a trained pilot", whats the bet not on the 73? Wonder if that 'interesting' takeoff was requested by tv3 to exaggerate the 'im going to die' story :ugh:

A google search revealed a 'Liam Brown' that holds a PPL passed in 03.

http://www.northshoreaeroclub.co.nz/...nts_to2007.pdf (page 6).

Must have taken him years. I mean having to wait weeks on end to get a day with 32kms vis to go flying must have been a killer:}

This is guna be a **** storm Campbell old boy, I hope you and your station are well covered..................................................... ............................:ugh::ugh:

What sort of departure ... the "Home sick angel 1 dep"

Accel to the Bricks along the lake...... then stand it on the tail in thrust until above terrain.

Have to agree, terrible reporting. wouldnt blame the young bloke in the sim though, looks like he was set up to me.

Just for info for those unfamiliar with the non-rnp jet depatures out of NZQN;
The visual segment of the departure is to a different height each time depending on the weight of the a/c and the resulting ROC that could be achieved single engine.
From memory it's normally about 5600ft for a domestic departure. If an engine fails subsequent to this height you can continue the departure and go IMC and get the required terrain clearance. If you lose one prior to this height you have to remain visual and return to land via the 'figure of 8' pattern. That is why you have the 30 mins prior to ECT requirment, you have to have time to do that maneuvring visually in the basin and get on the ground again. That is also why the met conditions have to have certain viz for the entire basin, not just where a normal departure would track.
This is for none-rnp departures, for all I know the crew were conducting an RNP departure and none of this applies to them. Can anyone say if PB are conducting RNP proceedures?